The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hogg) took the chair at 9:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
You do need some level of economic intervention if you want to get a network built ahead of when a business case would encourage (private) operators to build a network.
To optimize the benefits to society, broadband should be coordinated on a countrywide basis, promoting facilities-based competition and with policies encouraging service providers to offer access on fair market terms … efforts should be coordinated across all sectors of industry, administration and the economy.
Developing isolated projects or piecemeal, duplicated networks is not only inefficient, it delays provision of infrastructure that is becoming as crucial in the modern world as roads or electricity supplies.
… the level of detail and analytical framework that would be expected from a large listed public entity.
Broadband is the next tipping point, the next truly transformational technology. It can generate jobs, drive growth and productivity, and underpin long-term economic competitiveness.
… would conservatively boost GDP by between $8 and 23 billion over a ten year period and jobs by 33,000 by 2011 in an economy operating at less than full employment.
... to establish a joint committee on the National Broadband Network, the JCNBN, to provide progress reports every six months to the parliament until the completion of the project ... The composition of this committee will mirror the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit ... the committee will report on rollout progress, report against the final business plan, assess risk management processes and look at other matters the committee determines are relevant to its deliberations ... the committee would commence work on 1 July 2011—
and will draw on any relevant material from the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications, due to report back by August 2011. The committee would be able to call witnesses including MPs and senators about the performance of the NBN or any other matters of local interest.
But remember the debate is not about fibre per se; rather it is about whether the enormous cost of running fibre into 93 per cent of homes and businesses is justified by the benefits. That is the core financial issue with respect to the NBN.
I don’t think there is anyone in the country or in the world that will be able to tell you the benefits flowing from a high-speed broadband network five or 10 years out, let alone 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 years out.
And therefore when people talk about social cost-benefit analyses or cost-benefit analyses, I think that their failure to understand that what we’re talking about here is a visionary project much like the Snowy Mountains Scheme, which I will venture to suggest to you was never the subject of a cost-benefit analysis as has been described, but was the subject of a range of different elements, not the least of which was a vision as to how it might benefit communities in general into the future.
4. The maintenance of the price averaging basis for the cost of all new telecommunications and satellite Internet connections to ensure all Australians are charged the same basic price for maintenance and new connections …
... we're going to give this—the 20 million people who live in such a vast country the ability to have parity of service, parity of price into the future.
… Australia is leading the world in understanding the importance of fibre. Your new Prime Minister as part of her campaign and now, you know, as part of her prime ministership, has announced that by roughly I think 2015 [or] 2016, 93 per cent of Australians, which I guess are all the folks in the cities, will have gigabit or equivalent service using fibre. And the other 7 per cent will be handled through wireless services of a nature of [Long Term Evolution].
This is leadership. And again, from Australia, which I think is wonderful.
No one at the bargaining table appears to have represented consumer interests.
… a return to monopoly network provision in telecommunications in Australia.
Microeconomic reform had moved us away from this type of inefficient financing of government objectives. This proposal would move Australia back.
We can conceive of no greater anti-competitive action than the largest mobile service provider agreeing not to compete against the monopoly fixed line provider.
That this bill be now read a second time.
Unless you resort to a method of having plebiscites or referendums on each individual issue. And I think the Australian public would get very angry and tired about that. They would say: what’s wrong with you fellas, we elected you for three years, you go away and take all the decisions you want to on individual issues and then when those decisions have been taken at the end of your three year period if we don’t like you we’ll vote you out. I don’t think you can run it any other way.
… the estimates for Australia … appear to lie in the middle of the range of countries.
The government's recent announcement of a national emissions trading scheme, including offsets for trade exposed industries, is a positive and sensible approach to addressing global warming.
The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, says her minority government will be held to higher standards of accountability as a result of the deal struck with the independents. … 'We will be held to higher standards of transparency and reform and it's in that spirit I approach the task of forming government.'
Let's draw back the curtains and let the sun shine in. Let our parliament be more open than it ever was before.
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 12 OF 2011
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 14 September 2011 at 7.10 pm.
2. The committee resolved to recommend—That—
(a) the Constitutional Corporations (Farm Gate to Plate) Bill 2011 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 November 2011 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral).
(b) the Qantas Sale Amendment (Still Call Australia Home) Bill 2011 be referred immediately to the Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 2 November 2011 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral); and
(c) the Quarantine Amendment (Disallowing Permits) Bill 2011 be referred immediately to the Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 2 November 2011 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:
The committee recommends accordingly.
4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
(Anne McEwen)
Chair
15 September 2011
Appendix 1
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of Bill:
Constitutional Corporations (Farm Gate to Plate) Bill 2011
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
In undertaking the inquiry, the Committee should consider:
1. The need for greater consumer information on supermarket pricing
2. The low farm gate prices offered to Australian producers
3. The large mark-ups on fresh produce
4. The impact of the Coles/Woolworths duopoly on farm gate prices and mark-ups
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Coles
Woolworths
Foodland
IGA
National Farmers' Federation
South Australian Farmers' Federation
Horticulture Industry Network (and partnership associations)
Choice
Committee to which the bill is to be referred:
Senate Standing Committee on Economics (Legislation)
Possible hearing date(s):
October 2011
Possible reporting date:
24 November 2011
(Signed)
Senator Siewert
Whip/ Selection of Bills Committee Member
Appendix 2
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of Bill:
Qantas Sale Amendment (Still Call Australia Home) Bill 2011
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Qantas Airways Limited
Qantas CEO, Alan Joyce
Australian and International Pilots Association
Transport Workers Union
Flight Attendants Association of Australia
Australian Council of Trade Unions
Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association
Australian Services Union
Australian Workers' Union
Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union
Department of Finance and Deregulation
Committee to which Bill is to be referred:
Senate Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee
... to be heard jointly with the Inquiry into the Air Navigation and Civil Aviation Amendment (Aircraft Crew) Bill 2011.
Possible hearing date(s):
September / October 2011
Possible reporting date:
02 November 2011
(signed)
Senator Siewert
Whip/ Selection of Bills Committee member
Appendix 3
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of Bill:
Quarantine Amendment (Disallowing Permits) Bill 2011
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
Biosecurity Australia
Department of Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
AUSVEG
Apple and Pear Association Ltd
South Australian Fresh Fruit Growers Association
Fruit Growers Victoria Limited
Growcom
New South Wales Farmers Association
Charles Sturt University lecturer in constitutional law, Mr Bede Harris
FoodLegal, Australian food law expert, Mr Joe Lederman
Department of Primary Industries and Resources SA
Tasmanian Primary Industries Minister Bryan. Green
Committee to which Bill is to be referred:
Senate Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
September / October 2011
Possible reporting date:
02 November 2011
(signed)
Senator Siewert
Whip / Selection of Bills Committee member
That government business be interrupted at 1 pm to allow consideration of the following government business orders of the day till not later than 2 pm today:
No. 3 Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Amendment Bill 2011
Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Registration Charges Consequentials) Bill 2011
No. 4 Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2011
Horse Disease Response Levy Collection Bill 2011
Horse Disease Response Levy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011
No. 5 Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Amendment (Inventory) Bill 2011
No. 6 Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Early Release of Superannuation) Bill 2011
That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:
(a) general business notice of motion no. 415 standing in the name of Senator Fifield relating to the economy; and
(b) orders of the day relating to government documents.
That the following general business orders of the day be considered under the temporary order relating to the consideration of private senators' bills on Thursday, 22 September 2011:
Commonwealth Commissioner for Children and Young People Bill 2010
Landholders' Right to Refuse (Coal Seam Gas) Bill 2011
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Prohibition of Support for Whaling) Bill 2010
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Polley for today, for personal reasons.
That the Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Clean Energy Future Legislation be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today.
That paragraph (17) of the resolution of appointment of the Joint Select Committee on Cyber Safety be amended to read:
(17) That the committee may report from time to time but that it present its final report no later than 30 April 2013.
That the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 21 September 2011, from 9.30 am to 11 am, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the funding of political parties and election campaigns.
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee on the provisions of Schedule 3 of the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 be extended to 19 September 2011.
That the Community Affairs References Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 22 September 2011, from 4.30 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiries into the Commonwealth contribution to former forced adoption policies and the Professional Services Review Scheme.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the future of the South Australian National Football League (SANFL) broadcast on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) is in doubt, and
(ii) the South Australian Football Association was established in 1877 (later to become the SANFL) making it the oldest football league of any code in Australia and one of the oldest sporting codes in the world;
(b) recognises the coverage:
(i) is enjoyed by thousands of South Australians and football is intrinsic to the culture of this state and the nation as a whole, and
(ii) is consistent with the ABC's charter which refers to broadcasts that contribute to national identity and cultural diversity; and
(c) calls on the ABC to maintain its broadcasts of SANFL games.
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges the positive contribution made to Australian society by the Kurdish community;
(b) condemns the recent attacks on the Kurdish Society of Victoria, including an arson attack and shooting of their community centre; and
(c) calls on local and federal authorities:
(i) to investigate these attacks as a matter of urgency, and
(ii) to determine whether these attacks constitute a coordinated campaign of intimidation against the Victorian Kurdish community.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Japanese Government annually issues permits for the capture and killing of more than 20 000 dolphins and porpoises, and
(ii) the hunting of smaller cetaceans is a deliberate circumvention of any bans on the commercial killing of whales; and
(b) urges the Australian Government to:
(i) condemn the slaughter of dolphins and porpoises by Japan, and
(ii) recognise that the killing of dolphins and porpoises is coastal whaling.
It is a remarkable feat that you think that drowning people at sea is a question of respecting human rights.
That the Senate take note of the report.
Mr President, today I present the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties’ Report 119, which contains the Committee’s views on the Instrument Amending the Constitution of the International Telecommunication Union; and the Instrument Amending the Convention of the International Telecommunication Union which were tabled in the Commonwealth Parliament on 5 July 2011.
The work of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) is technically complicated and not widely understood. However, its work does materially improve telecommunication services for the general public. Probably the best known example of this is the 2000 agreement establishing an international standard for third generation mobile telephony. The 2000 agreement replaced a diversity of country based mobile telephony standards with a single international standard, enabling third generation mobile devices to operate anywhere in the world, laying the framework for international mobile roaming.
The ITU funds its activities through contributions from Member States. Unlike other United Nations agencies, Member States decide their own level of contribution. Although Australia’s contribution to the ITU is 4.725 million Swiss Francs (approximately A$5.1 million), this sum is entirely recouped through industry contributions. Consequently, the Australian Government has no net costs.
Mr President, the proposed treaty action amends the ITU’s Constitution and Convention in relation to the class of contribution Member States may make to the ITU. Both of the amending instruments will enter into force generally on 1 January 2012.
The amendments comprise:
The greatest impact of the amendment will be to reduce the amount by which the largest financial contributors to the ITU can decrease their level of contribution at any one time. Although the ITU is not financially unstable, the adoption of this amendment would contribute towards improving the ITU’s financial stability.
Aside from the above provisions, the obligations of ITU Member States will not change.
The Treaties Committee supports the adoption of the proposed amendments as they will provide stability to ITU funding. The Committee understands that the telecommunications industry supports the changes and there will be no net cost to the Australian Government. For these reasons the Committee concludes that these amendments should be supported with binding treaty action.
Mr President, I commend the report to the Senate.
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
That these bills be now read a second time.
The Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 (the bill) amends the Defence Act 1903 , theNaval Defence Act 1910 and theAir Force Act 1923 to provide the Chief of the Defence Force (CDF) with the authority to issue directions to the Service Chiefs in relation to the administration of their respective Cadet schemes.
The Australian Defence Force Cadets is a nationwide youth development scheme delivered in partnership by Defence and the community. The Australian Defence Force Cadets comprises the Australian Navy Cadets, Australian Army Cadets and Australian Air Force Cadets. There are approximately 22,000 Australian Defence Force Cadets and 2,500 Cadet Staff in some 500 Cadet units and headquarters across Australia.
Currently, the Chief of Army, Chief of Navy and the Chief of Air Force are responsible for the administration of their respective Cadet organisations subject to the direction of the Minister.
This means that for Cadet-related policy to be enforceable, consistent and binding on each of the cadet organisations, the three Service Chiefs, the Secretary and the Chief of the Defence Force must agree and endorse the policy.
This can result in delays in development of policy and misinterpretation of policy leading to duplicated efforts and inhibiting the development of a concerted and consistent youth development scheme. Indeed, the current arrangements have resulted in disparate policies and procedures being applied by each cadet organisation. For example there are no common selection and training standards for Cadets staff, which inhibits the transfer of qualified cadet staff between the cadet organisations.
In 2008 the Government commissioned an independent review of the Cadet scheme, known as the Hickling Review, to consider how Cadets could be improved to ensure it reflected community expectations for a youth development program.
The bill implements part of the Government's response to the recommendations of the Hickling Review. In essence, the bill's measures will:
allow the Chief of the Defence Force, as well as the Minister, to issue directions to the Service Chiefs in relation to the administration of their respective Cadet schemes; and
allow the CDF to delegate his power to direct the Service Chiefs in relation to Cadet administration to the Vice Chief of the Defence Force, and;
for consistency align the three cadet provisions.
Cadets are not members of the Australian Defence Force and are not subject to the command and control regime of the ADF under the Defence Act 1903 .
This bill will ensure that coherent tri-Service policy can be consistently developed and implemented by each Cadet organisation, and will assist with consolidating and reducing duplicated efforts across the Cadets programs.
Allowing the CDF, in addition to the Minister, to issue directions in relation to the administration of the Cadet scheme will strengthen the accountability of the management of the Cadets, and will facilitate the establishment of a common and concerted youth engagement and development strategy within Defence.
I commend the bill to the House.
Although it is one of the harshest environments on the planet, Antarctica is also one of the most vulnerable.
Australia continues to take a leading role to secure protection of this fragile environment including through participation in Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings, which are the annual meetings of countries which have an interest in Antarctica.
The 2005 Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting requested the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to examine ways to restrict the use of heavy grade oils in Antarctic waters.
Consequently, the IMO's Marine Environment Protection Committee adopted, on 26 March 2010, amendments to Annex I of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) to ban the use or carriage of heavy grade oils in the Antarctic Area except where it is necessary to secure the safety of a ship or in a search and rescue operation.
The amendments to Annex I of MARPOL entered into force internationally on 1 August 2011.
The purpose of the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oils in the Antarctic Area) Bill 2011 is to amend the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 to implement these amendments.
This bill will apply the ban on the carriage or use of heavy grade oils to all ships in the Australian Antarctic Territory and to Australian ships elsewhere in the Antarctic Area.
The possibility of an oil spill in the Antarctic Area is relatively high.
Ships navigating in these waters face a number of risks including icebergs, sea ice and uncharted waters.
The rationale for banning the use and carriage of heavy grade oils in the Antarctic Area is that they are more environmentally hazardous than other marine oils because they are slow to break down in the marine environment, particularly in cold polar waters.
It is likely that a spill of heavy grade oils in Antarctic waters would persist for many years and could have a major impact on any wildlife populations in the vicinity, particularly on penguins and other seabirds.
The bill imposes a maximum penalty of $220,000 on both the master and owner of a ship in the event of a breach of this ban.
As a government, we are committed to preventing and reducing marine pollution where possible.
This bill will help to ensure that the Antarctic Area remains free of significant pollution damage.
That the Senate take note of the report.
The committee recognises that when a person spends their professional career inhaling and absorbing known—and probably some as yet unknown—carcinogens in the course of public service, it is the moral duty of the community to enable them to seek compensation should they fall ill as a consequence.
… dramatically reduce waiting times for elective surgery such as hip and knee replacements in Australia's public hospitals.
… barometer of our relationship with Asia…and an indirect measure of Australia's reputation internationally.
… strong education flows reflect wider flows in ideas, people and trade.
International education and conference attendance correlates with tourism and migration in the short term and investment and trade statistics in the years to come.
(1) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 2), after item 11, insert:
11A Paragraph 29(1)(a)
Omit "less", substitute "plus
(aa) the total of the prescribed amounts relating to expenses incurred by the student in connection with the course; less".
11B Subsection 29(2)
Omit "paragraph (1)(b)", substitute "paragraphs (1)(aa) and (b)".
11C Section 46
After "course money", insert "and certain consequential costs".
We want our international visitors who come here to study to know that the Government is looking after their interests.
That these bills be now read a third time.
That these bills be now read a third time.
That intervening business be postponed till after consideration of government business order of the day no. 6 (Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Early Release of Superannuation) Bill 2011).
That this bill be now read a third time.
That this bill be now read a third time.
Questions may be put to a minister … or to any matter of administration for which the minister is responsible in a personal or representative capacity.
The effectiveness of the current media codes of practice in Australia …
The arrangement remains for the transfer of 800 people. We have the clearest possible advice from the experts that advise government that it is the plan with the maximum deterrence effect.
… you can’t reduce greenhouse gas emissions unless you have a price on carbon.
Labor would take asylum-seekers who had been rescued from leaky boats to Christmas Island, would turn back seaworthy vessels containing such people on the high seas …
"You'd turn them back," he said of boats approaching Australia, emphasising that Labor believed in an "orderly immigration system" …
Thursday 15 September
Response to Question from Senator Hanson-Young—Taken on notice Monday 12 September
Senator Hanson-Young:
Does the Government now accept the Minister for Immigration has a conflict of interest in looking after the children he is a legal guardian for and in his role as Immigration Minister making decisions about whether to deport them or not?
This Government believes that its overriding obligation is to stop unaccompanied minors risking their lives by taking the dangerous boat journey to Australia. We believe our overriding obligation is to say to parents, 'do not risk the lives of your children on the prospect of being granted an Australian visa.'
The High Court's decision has made it clear that the current law creates significant obstacles to unaccompanied minors being removed from Australia, even where they have been found not to be a refugee at both the primary and review stages, have exhausted all judicial appeals and have no authority to remain in Australia. That, in the view of the Government, is not a sustainable policy.
The broader issue of the guardianship of unaccompanied minors is something that the Government may consider down the track. However, in the short term, the Government considers it essential that legislation be passed to restore the situation to how it had been previously understood—that the Minister is required to consider the best interests of a child for whom he is the guardian, without limiting necessary obligations and powers under the Migration Act.
The Government's proposed legislative amendments are essential to ensuring that there are no blanket exemptions with regard to who is subject to the provisions of the Migration Act. Blanket exemptions inevitably create a perverse incentive for people smugglers to send children on the dangerous boat journey to Australia.
CHRIS EVANS
15 SEPTEMBER 2011
Thursday 15 September 2011
Response to Question from Senator Rhiannon—Taken on notice Monday 12 September
Response
- strong sector support for the Scheme, particularly as it contributes to improved equity and accessibility for VET students;
- concerns about the applicability of the 'one size fits all' Higher Education Loan Program model in the VET sector and the related administrative complexity;
- inequity and relevance of the credit transfer requirement which are restricting provider access and the 20 per cent student loan fee in VET; and
- the need for a more integrated implementation approach to VET reform by all governments, including the extension of the Scheme nationally to support such reforms.
CHRIS EVANS
Attachment A
Terms of Reference for the Post Implementation Review of the VET FEE-HELP Assistance Scheme
To support DEEWR to undertake a critical analysis of one of its programs, undertake a post-implementation review of the VET FEE-HELP Assistance Scheme including delivery a high quality report.
The review work includes development of a project plan, information gathering, research, quantitative and qualitative assessment and analysis, consultation with stakeholders and regular reports to the DEEWR.
The review will culminate in a report which could serve to:
The post-implementation review of the VET FEE-HELP Assistance Scheme includes:
1. Review the Scheme's performance as a whole against what it set out to achieve at its introduction in 2008.
2. Conduct a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the Scheme's performance including its impact on:
3. Recommendations for improvements to the Scheme including areas which may require further policy development, particularly in the context of the shift to the tertiary framework.
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (Senator Carr) to questions without notice asked by Senators Brandis and Cash today relating to asylum seekers and the Malaysian agreement.
… I think that our country should have the best border protection policy that the government of the day thinks that it needs and I’m prepared to work constructively to give the Government, to restore to the Government, the option of third country offshore processing which it says the High Court and the Solicitor-General have denied to it.
Senate Economics Reference Committee Inquiry into Augmented Tax Assessments Commonwealth Government Response
BACKGROUND
On 17 November 2010, the Opposition first introduced amendments to the tax laws which would have required the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) to augment individual taxpayers’ notices of assessment with personalised tax receipts.
This tax receipt would breakdown how an individual’s taxes were notionally spent by the Government (into areas such as welfare, education, health and defence) based on a nominal distribution of Budget expenses. The receipt would also have purported to show the individual’s ‘share’ of Australian Government net debt.
After comprehensively examining the proposal, the Government determined that the proposed amendments had a variety of problems.
First, the proposal unnecessarily complicated the income tax assessment process by linking the tax receipt to the service of the notice of assessment. The Commissioner of Taxation (Commissioner) is responsible for assessing a taxpayer’s amount of taxable income, as well as their tax payable. After this assessment is made, the Commissioner is responsible for serving a notice of this assessment upon the taxpayer. Making the tax receipt part of this assessment process creates a significant risk that taxpayers may be able to challenge the service of their notice of assessment if there is a problem with their tax receipt. Successful challenges may also prevent the collection of any tax payable in similar situations until the problem is rectified, and a valid notice served.
Second, the other information that would be included in the tax receipt would not reflect an individual’s true financial relationship with the Government, as it would not take into account Government payments and general tax expenditure, nor all taxpayers. Nor would it allow for situations where tax is assessed but never paid by an individual.
Third, calculating a taxpayer’s ‘share’ of Australian Government net debt would be very misleading, as it would not be indicative of any personal obligation the individual taxpayer has or may have in the future.
Fourth, the proposal gave the ATO a very short timeframe for implementing the requisite system changes – they would be required to be operational by 1 July 2011.
Finally, there were a significant number of drafting problems with the proposed draft legislation. This included what appear to be incorrect references to ‘financial year’ in the amendment which should have been ‘income year’. Additionally, it was also unclear what terms like ‘the number of individual taxpayers’ and ‘the amount of the assessment’ meant.
In light of these concerns, the Government did not support the proposed amendments and the proposal was voted down in both the House of Representatives (on 17 November 2010) and the Senate (on 22 November 2010). However, the Senate referred the proposed amendments to the Senate Economics Reference Committee (the Committee) to report by 31 March 2011.
The Committee received one submission from the public on the issue, and heard evidence from both ATO and Treasury officials at a public hearing held on 9 February 2011.
On 2 March 2011, the Opposition proposed slightly different amendments in another attempt to require the ATO to provide tax receipts to individual taxpayers. These amendments differed in that they required the ATO to use the most recently published data, as at the time the individual’s notice of assessment was issued.
In effect, this modified proposal would require the information for the tax receipt to change the day after the release of the Budget, the Final Budget Outcomes (FBO) and the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO) data. It would be administratively burdensome for the ATO to change this source data, and issue differently constituted tax receipts, within the same income year. Further, using the most recently published data would reduce the effectiveness of taxpayers being able to compare information contained in their tax receipt with that of others from the same income year, and could lead to confusion.
As such, the Government did not support these proposed amendments either, and the modified proposal was voted down in the House of Representatives on 2 March 2011.
On 8 April 2011, the Committee released its final report of inquiry into augmented tax assessments – which examined the Opposition’s original proposed amendments (as put forward on 17 November 2010). The report comprised of three sections:
The Government’s formal responses to the recommendations in the majority and minority reports are provided below. The Government notes that Senator Xenophon acknowledges the limitations of the Opposition’s proposal, and supports the provision of a user-friendly website which provides clear information about Government spending and budgetary measures.
SUMMARY OF GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
The Government agrees that it is important to provide taxpayers with comprehensive information about Government expenditure. However, the Government already publishes the aggregate information that would be provided in this tax receipt in its Budget and MYEFO documents. Further, the ATO had estimated that the departmental costs of implementing the original proposal put forward by the Opposition would be $9.9 million over four years.
As such, the Government considers this proposal both unnecessary and expensive, and when considered with the other significant problems identified above, the Government agrees that the proposal should not proceed.
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO MAJORITY REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1
The committee recommends that the proposal be amended to allow the most recently available figure or estimate of the total number of taxpayers to be used to calculate an individual taxpayer's share of government debt.
The Government does not accept this recommendation.
If the tax receipt proposal was to proceed, the most recently available and reliable data on the number of taxpayers should be used to generate the receipt. However, it is unclear who would constitute a taxpayer for the purposes of calculating an individual’s ‘share’ of government debt.
More significantly though, calculating an individual’s ‘share’ of net debt is misleading, as it does not represent any personal obligation owed by the relevant taxpayer.
Furthermore, the ambiguity of this calculation may exacerbate the risk of a taxpayer being able to challenge the tax assessment process, since this proposal links the tax receipt (and the information contained therein) with the service of a taxpayer’s notice of assessment. This significant risk is not addressed in this or any other recommendation from the Committee.
Recommendation 2
The committee recommends that consideration be given to modifying the amendments so that the names given to the functions of government expenditure correspond with those used in the documents published during the Budget process.
The Government does not support the tax receipt proposal. As such, it does not accept this recommendation. However, if the proposal went ahead, this recommendation would ensure that the ATO could use a convenient and reliable source of information when populating an individual’s tax receipt.
The Government notes that even if the Parliament agreed to implement the Opposition’s proposal, this recommendation only addresses one problem with the proposal, and does not address any of the broader problems identified earlier.
Recommendation 3
The committee recommends that an explanatory note be inserted into the amendments to allow the most up-to-date publicly available government estimates of Budget expenditure available on 30 June (of the relevant financial year) to be used in any calculations to breakdown how the amount of an individual's assessment was spent on different government functions.
The Government does not support the tax receipt proposal. As such, it does not accept this recommendation. However, if the proposal went ahead, this recommendation would address some of the Government’s concerns about data integrity and the administrative burdens faced by the ATO in having to periodically update data sources.
The Government notes that even if the Parliament agreed to implement the Opposition’s proposal, this recommendation only addresses one problem with the proposal, and does not address any of the broader problems identified earlier.
Recommendation 4
Subject to the committee's other recommendations being adopted, the committee recommends that the amendments to the Tax Laws Amendment (2010 Measures No. 4) Bill 2010 proposed by Senator Cormann on sheet 7010 be introduced as a Bill, and that the Bill be passed.
The Government does not accept this recommendation.
Although the Government agrees with the importance of providing taxpayers with relevant and reliable information about how their tax dollars are spent, it does not support the tax receipt proposal. As noted, a number of substantial problems with this proposal remain outstanding, and the Committee’s recommendations do not mitigate the Government’s concerns about them. However, the Government will continue to provide relevant information about government expenditure (as addressed in Recommendation 2 of the minority report).
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO MINORITY REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1
The Government should not consider supporting such a measure because information on the breakdown of spending at the time of lodgement will not be timely. At the time taxpayers expect to receive their assessment, the breakdown many not be accurate or final, and will either delay assessments or provide poor information.
The Government accepts this recommendation.
In light of the problems which have been identified earlier, the Government does not support the tax receipt proposal.
Recommendation 2
The Government should continue to maintain at least the current standard of accessible and available Government information on expenditure to provide the necessary transparency to all Australians.
The Government accepts this recommendation.
The Government will continue to provide the bulk of the information which was proposed to be included in the tax receipt, in its Budget and MYEFO documents. For example, pie charts which summarise the Government’s budgeted revenues and expenses are provided in the Budget Overview document each year.
Government Response to the Senate Select Committee on Scrutiny of New Taxes inquiry “The Student Amenities Fee – Another Tax by Another Name”
September 2011
The Government rejects the Committee’s assertion that the proposed student services and amenities fee is a tax. The conclusion expressed by the Committee on this point was unsupported by evidence. To the contrary, the Clerk of the Senate provided advice to the Committee that the proposed Student Services and Amenities Fee was not a tax, as did the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.
The Student Services and Amenities Fee is a fee for student services and amenities to be provided by higher education providers to their enrolled students. It is a decision for each higher education provider whether or not to charge a fee. The Bill does not raise general revenue for the Commonwealth.
The Government notes that the only term of reference cited by the Committee as providing the basis for its inquiry was the term of reference which allowed it to consider “any other related matter”.
The Committee’s report made the following three recommendations:
Recommendation 1
The Committee recommends that the Government publicly release an exposure draft of the instrument to amend the Administration Guidelines made under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 as soon as possible.
Recommendation 2
The Committee recommends that the Senate postpone consideration of the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2010 until the draft instrument to amend the Administration Guidelines made under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 is publicly released.
Recommendation 3
The Committee recommends that the Senate reject the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2010.
Response
Recommendation 1 – Noted. Administration Guidelines are currently being finalised and will be available well in advance of the implementation date. The Administration Guidelines will be published on the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations’ website.
Recommendation 2 – Disagree. It is noted that Recommendation 2 is internally inconsistent with Recommendation 3. The Bill should be considered by the Senate in a timely fashion to ensure that students have the benefit of improved student services and amenities with effect from the new academic year in 2012.
Recommendation 3 – Disagree. The Government is committed to the Bill’s passage through the Senate in a timely fashion to ensure that students have the benefit of improved student services and amenities with effect from the new academic year in 2012.
Government Response to the Inquiry into the development of a digital repository and electronic distribution of the Parliamentary Papers Series by the Joint Committee on Publications
September 2011
Committee Recommendations
Recommendation 5
The committee recommends that author departments and agencies be required to provide electronic copies of documents at the same time print copies are provided for tabling in the Parliament.
Government Response
Agreed in principle.
The Department of the Prime Minister & Cabinet will issue a Tabling Circular to all agencies advising them of this requirement. However, to ensure that government documents are not made available electronically while they are under embargo, they will be published online as soon as possible after they have been tabled in the Parliament.
That the Senate notes the Gillard Government's failure to implement a sound fiscal strategy.
That the Senate notes the Gillard Government's failure to implement a sound fiscal strategy.
That the Senate notes the Gillard Government's failure to implement a sound fiscal strategy.
The economic outlook is favorable. After a temporary setback in the first quarter due to natural disasters, activity is expected to bounce back in the second quarter. We project real GDP growth of 2 percent for calendar year 2011 and 3½ percent in 2012 …
… we commend the authorities for remaining committed to returning the Commonwealth budget to surplus by 2012/13, despite the worsening of the budget balance in 2010/11 as a result of natural disasters. Fiscal consolidation will strengthen fiscal buffers and take some pressure off monetary policy and the exchange rate. This consolidation is faster than in many other advanced economies and is more ambitious than earlier envisaged, with an adjustment of almost 4 percent of GDP over the next two years on a cash basis. We support the emphasis on expenditure control.
The—
hairy-chested approach would be more convincing ... if Hockey and his mates had the gumption to wield their razors against wasteful and irresponsible promises made by their leader.
FRAN KELLY: It's not like a furphy, then?
ANDREW ROBB: No, it's not a furphy. We came out with the figure, right? So it is a furphy to call it a 'black hole'. That is just—it's just Labor's spin again to avoid any discussion about why we are looking at $70 billion as the sort of out-marker.
... the coalition will not submit its policy costings to either the Treasury or the PBO prior to the election.
There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.
I rule out a carbon tax.
We have made our position very clear. We have ruled it out.
I have been very upfront about why I think a carbon tax isn't the most sensible thing for Australia.
… a carbon tax is not the silver bullet some people might think.
A carbon tax does not guarantee emissions reductions.
A carbon tax … is a recipe for abrupt and unpredictable changes, as the government would need to adjust the tax frequently to try to meet the emissions reduction target …
… we know that you can't have any environmental certainty with a carbon tax.
That the Senate take note of the document.
That the Senate take note of the report.
The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, says her minority government will be held to higher standards of accountability as a result of the deal struck with the independents.
"We will be held to higher standards of transparency and reform and it's in that spirit I approach the task of forming a government."
With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 75 taken on notice during the 2010-11 additional estimates hearings of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, which reported that the department does not keep data on vacant commercial space:
(1) Can the Minister advise which, if any, department currently keeps and collects data on vacant commercial space.
(2) Does the department recognise the potential to transform vacant commercial buildings into affordable rental spaces.
(3) Has the department done any research at all into the kind of incentives needed to make this attractive for property owners.
(4) Will the Minister instruct the National Housing Supply Council to collect data on vacant commercial space; if not, why not.
(1) The department is not aware of any Australian Government agency that collects and maintains data on vacant commercial space.
(2) State, territory and local government planning regulations require commercial buildings to be located in commercial/business zones. Commercial buildings are also required to be designed and constructed in accordance with regulated commercial building guidelines.
Planning and zoning issues are the responsibility of state, territory and local governments. It is therefore appropriate for these governments to consider whether underutilised land, including vacant commercial buildings, could be reallocated to a use that delivered greater social, economic or environmental benefit.
(3) The department is working with other Australian Government departments to develop the COAG Housing Supply and Affordability Reform agenda which includes planning and zoning governance reforms; considering national principles for residential development infrastructure charging; and extending government land audits and examining private holdings of large parcels of land to assess the scope for increasing competition and bringing land quickly to market.
(4) The remit of the National Housing Supply Council is to monitor housing demand, supply and affordability in Australia, and to highlight current and potential gaps between housing supply and demand from households. The Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities provides broad guidance on the government’s priorities, but the council is an independent group that operates at arm’s length from government.
In regard to student housing and the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS):
(1) What is the current estimated housing gap for Australian students.
(2) Which agency at the Federal Government level is currently tasked with measuring current housing need for students.
(3) Can a list be provided of all Federal Government programs currently providing funding or other resources (such as policy advice) in the area of student housing.
(4) Can a table be provided listing: the number of full time and part time students by state and territory, the number of student housing dwellings provided on campus by state and territory, and the estimated student housing gap for each state and territory.
(5) To date, how many applications have been submitted to NRAS for student housing since the program began.
(6) To date, how many NRAS incentives have been approved for student housing since the program began.
(7) Can a table be provided of student housing approved by NRAS with the following information for each NRAS Round:
(a) total number of applications for student housing;
(b) total number of projects approved for student housing or with a student housing component; and
(c) a description of each approved project, including applicant/name of institution, type of project, location (suburb and state or territory), number of student dwellings and, if relevant, the number of other dwellings as part of the project.
A list of programs and the alignment of their objectives with the development of student accommodation is at Table 1.
Table 1: Sources of Australian Government Capital Funding for Student Accommodation
(4) As noted above, the Commonwealth does not currently collect data on student accommodation. A summary of full and part time students by state and territory is at Table 2.
Table 2 Number of Full time and part-time students by state and territory (2009 student data).
(5) To date, 31 applications for NRAS Incentives have been received from universities or educational institutions since the commencement of the program on 1 July 2008.
(6) As at 20 June 2011, 2,681 incentives have been offered and accepted by universities or other educational institutions with 467 dwellings delivered.
(7) (a) (b) (c) Noting the answer to question 5, the table below provides information about each supported application where the applicant is a university or other educational institution.
*There were no specifically identified or other educational institution applications in Round 1.
Given that the 2011-12 Budget provided $100 million in funding for the new Building Better Regional Cities program for ‘local housing infrastructure projects that will help build more affordable homes in high growth regional cities over the next three years’ and that 47 regional cities, with populations over 30 000, have been invited to participate in the program.
(1) With reference to the program’s website which states ‘funding will only be awarded to cities that provide robust evidence of future jobs growth and can show how many extra affordable homes will be created as a result of the proposed projects’:
(a) how will applicants be required to quantify and define the ‘extra affordable homes’ they will deliver, if successful in the application process;
(b) in relation to the specific delivery of extra affordable homes, what criteria will be used to assess applications; and
(c) how will ‘extra affordable homes’ be measured and reported on as part of this program.
(2) Will any type of formal housing needs analysis be required from the regional cities as part of their application process.
(3) Will all forms of tenure, that is, affordable home ownership, affordable rental and social rental, be included in this scheme.
(4) What are the program targets for housing under each of the following bands identified by the National Affordable Housing Summit:
(a) Band A (rent is kept under 25 per cent of tenants’ income);
(b) Band B (rent is 20 per cent less than the market rate for at least 10 years); and
(c) Band C (home purchase programs for low to moderate incomes).
(5) Can an outline be provided of the resources allocated to administering this program and the qualifications of staff in the relation to housing affordability.
(6) With reference to the program’s website which states that ‘Councils will be able to use program funding to invest in local infrastructure projects that support new housing developments, including connecting roads, extensions to drains and sewers, and community infrastructure such as parks and community centres’: can an outline be provided as to why funds should be provided for roads, drains, parks and community centres, when typically these are the responsibility of the developer to provide.
(1) The final Program Guidelines for the Building Better Regional Cities program are being developed in consultation with stakeholders and will include information on performance measures, assessment and program delivery requirements.
(2) The draft Program Guidelines and draft Application Form for the program currently include a requirement for applicants to undertake a housing needs analysis (under Criterion 1 ‘Economic Growth and Housing Need’). However, as noted above, the requirements will be confirmed and included in the final Program Guidelines.
(3) Affordable home ownership and affordable rental for low and moderate income earners is included under the Building Better Regional Cities program, but social housing is not, as the Australian Government seeks to address this policy area through other measures.
(4) To ensure that the program is responsive to localised needs, the draft Program Guidelines do not specify a single affordability target, and instead place the onus on applicants to identify the most relevant definitions and targets for their region and/or state or territory
(5) The Building Better Regional Cities program currently has the following funding profile:
Staff in this division of the department are experienced public servants selected for their skills and experience in designing and delivering programs, including housing affordability programs.
(6) The Australian Government recognises that the provision of local infrastructure such as roads, drainage and sewers contributes to the initial and long term affordability of housing. These costs are often passed on to home buyers either through direct charges, an ongoing contribution via local rates or the purchase price of land and/or property packages.
Funding under the Building Better Regional Cities program will only be awarded to projects that can clearly show how the funding investment made by the Australian Government will result in an increase in the number of homes for sale and rent that are affordable for low to moderate income earners.
Can a list be provided of the legislation that the Water group within the department, the National Water Commission and the Murray-Darling Basin Authority are responsible for administering, including all regulations under these Acts?
Under the Administrative Arrangements Order of 14 October 2010 the Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities portfolio is responsible for the administration of the following water related legislation:
The portfolio also administers the following water related Acts which will be repealed when the Statute Stocktake Bill (no.1) 2011 takes effect The Bill passed through both Houses on
18 August 2011 and will take effect when it receives Royal Assent.
Regulations have been made under these Acts as follows:
On becoming Prime Minister in June 2010, did Ms Gillard receive any calls from leaders of other countries; if so, can a list be provided of:
(a) all the countries of which the leader phoned the Prime Minister;
(b) which calls the Prime Minister was able to take immediately and on what date they were received; and (c) which calls the Prime Minister was unable to take together with the date the call was received and returned.
I am advised that my diary reflects that in June 2010 I received calls from the following leaders of other countries:
The record does not indicate which, if any, of these calls I was unable to take immediately.
Has the department paid for accommodation, venue hire and catering services from the Four Points by Sheraton Sydney, Darling Harbour; if so:
(a) who stayed in the accommodation;
(b) why was the venue hired;
(c) who utilized the catering services; and
(d) what were the itemised costs on the invoice or bill.
I am advised that:
(a) In 2010-11, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet did not make any payments to the Four Points by Sheraton Sydney for accommodation. In 2011-12, to 29 August 2011, the department paid $619 for two nights accommodation for a departmental officer whilst attending a conference.
(b ) & (c) The department has not paid the Four Points by Sheraton Sydney for any venue hire or catering services in 2010-11 or 2011-12, to 29 August 2011.
(d) $580 for accomodation and $39 for room service.